Forum:The Future of this Community
Hello everyone. This community has seen some crazy ups and downs over the last few days. Honestly, as an outsider it is somewhat difficult to even parse all the different threads of the arguments back and forth. It seems that the only thing certain about the leadership of this wikia is that it is in a state of flux. Inactive members, promotions not following previously established guidelines, lots and lots of arguing, and frequent complaints to staff have made it clear that this community is in crisis, especially in light of what appears to be a concerted effort at a hostile takeover from outside sources . It's hard to evaluate all of these political maneuvers from the outside, but it is apparent that something has to be done. Please remember that the positions of Admin and Bureaucrat aren't as hierarchical as they might seem. They have a few extra rights, but they are a member of the community just like everyone else. To that end, I have taken the liberty of removing Bureaucrat rights from everyone who previously had them, pending the wiki as a whole stabilizing. Since the issue really seems to be jockying for "control" of the community and not actual malicious editing I have left Admin rights in place. The only real difference between the two is that only Bureaucrats can assign user rights. no one can promote or demote others until the community is in a better place. Any editing, blocking, or other maintenance duties can still be carried out. That still leaves 9 Admins who have all edited recently. Any discussion about the future of the wiki will have to include a conversation about what the leadership should look like. There have been several forum pages dedicated to that issue, but they quickly derailed into circular arguments going back and forth. Communities do get to decide their own leadership and the standards that govern them, but they need to be free to do so in an open and transparent forum. Everyone gets a voice, although not every voice carries the same amount of weight. But the flip side of that equation is that communities need to chart their own course outside of concerted efforts to "expropriate" them from the outside. Sockpuppets and/or users from other wikis seeking to manipulate consensus can't skew the conversation. There is no pressing need for any Bureaucrat activity. If there are issues, please reach out to us at Special:Contact. How many Admins are really necessary? Bureaucrats? Should there be minimal activity level? Are there actual issues with the current Admins? How should they be selected going forward? You can use this forum as a centralized place to discuss these issues, but please note that no Bureaucrat rights will be granted for the foreseeable future. And insults and harassment have no place in a constructive conversation. --semanticdrifter (help forum | blog) 22:22, September 17, 2013 (UTC) Discussion Alright, I suggest we get the ball rolling on this soon, or after Policy Amendment passes/fails. As for these questions (imo)... '' '''How many Admins are really necessary? ' I don't really think there is a definitive number on this. *I think that anyone who is using the tools needed should have the tools. If an editor is actively working for the betterment of the wiki as a whole, then their ability to sysop should be given. HOWEVER, I think that anyone who hasn't made content contributions to the wiki in over a month is simply a security risk to the wiki. Assuming that there is an active Bcrat, any admin can be moved to rollback rights while inactive and returned to inactivity if needed. We currently have 14 Admins, but only 5 have made an edit on the wiki in the last year. Of those 5, 1 has not made a single edit on an article (nontalk page / forum) in nearly 2 years, and another has made less than 5 non-reverted content edits to the wiki. It is silly for these inactive account to maintain their sysop abilities unused and possibly insecure. 02:18, October 11, 2013 (UTC) 'Bureaucrats? ' Per above, we really don't need any more than 1 active and policy following B'Crat though. *I think that the same basic rule for admin should apply to Bcrat. The only problem is they cannot demote each other, so we rely on an inactive b'crat demoting them-self. I think that having only 1 relies too much on that one person to be active on time sensitive issues. 2-3 ACTIVE Bcrats seems more than enough though. 'Should there be minimal activity level? ' After a year of doing nothing, you're more of a security risk than an admin... so... maybe? *I think 30 days is a long time to be truly inactive. 'Are there actual issues with the current Admins? ' Well... Maybe... *Notice the "Outcry" has died down, and those naysayers have disappeared? Where have they gone? I think the established admins who had RFAs are good. The others... 02:18, October 11, 2013 (UTC) 'How should they be selected going forward? ' Using the RfA/B/R community consensus policy. Which I'm attempting to clarify with the Policy Amendment, so it must be used in the future, with strict, and well defined consequences if it is ignored. 04:11, September 19, 2013 (UTC)